If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Could everyone make a list of all the sacrifices they have made for Mother Earth to save her from man??

Thanks!

stan b

Wow, it took 14 pages to try and shift the discussion to this again. Way to come through with the childish "Oh yeah, well if you think it is such a big deal, what are you doing about it?"
I was asked and answered this many years ago on these boards. Not going there again but I will say that I have saved a lot of money in the long run.

Wow, it took 14 pages to try and shift the discussion to this again. Way to come through with the childish "Oh yeah, well if you think it is such a big deal, what are you doing about it?"
I was asked and answered this many years ago on these boards. Not going there again but I will say that I have saved a lot of money in the long run.

Seems like you were the one playing the "so it's all about you" card earlier in this thread... Or am I mistaken? Didn't thinks so...

I don't know if 97% of atmospheric scientists agree or not. (If you get 97% agreeing on any issue then we better elect them to Congress.) Anything in a super majority of those agreeing is enough for me to throw my hat into that camp.

John Cook is a blogger. His rantings about the issue is just that--rants. Neither Cook's or Taylor's assertions constitute proof that would stand up in court.
As I say, I'll follow the PhD's. I know those fellows well. I know the political types all too well.

I don't know if 97% of atmospheric scientists agree or not. (If you get 97% agreeing on any issue then we better elect them to Congress.) Anything in a super majority of those agreeing is enough for me to throw my hat into that camp.

John Cook is a blogger. His rantings about the issue is just that--rants. Neither Cook's or Taylor's assertions constitute proof that would stand up in court.
As I say, follow I'll follow the PhD's. I know those fellows well. I know the political types all too well.

Yes, this guy does write Opinion pieces about these issues for the “Heartland Institute”, funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon mobile, what do you people keep saying about “follow the money”. This “institute” is a right wing propaganda machine whose purpose is to cast doubt on climate change. James Taylor is an attorney with no background in science and no scientific publications. He has also been previously called out on falsely presenting scientific articles (i.e. lying about them). Here are a few links: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...y-180-degrees/http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor
Note the comment from the author of this study that he misrepresented http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...1363-1219-5279

So, with just a little digging it is easy to see that the blogger you cite has an agenda and has been called out for lying multiple times. I suppose he is not doing it in this article though, right? Let's continue....

Originally Posted by huntinman

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results...... At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

It sure is nice how he worked in the ‘liberal media” right at the start. Who is he trying to appeal to? These are serious claims, I hope he has submitted his concerns to the scientific journal where the paper was published. That would be the proper way for a scientist to respond to a peer reviewed paper, but oh that’s right, he is not a scientist so he publishes opinion pieces on a blog which are demonstrable misleading and inaccurate (aka lies). I provided the link to the paper that your author is trying to rip apart back in post 107. Read it and poke holes in it yourself.

Originally Posted by huntinman

Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Nice job working in “misleadingly named blog”. Why does this guy think the name of the website is misleading and does not say the information on the website is misleading? Yes, Mr. Cook published a scientific paper. Something your blogger never has done. The research found 3,894 papers where the abstract was gaged to “endorse AW” and 84 papers that do not. Besides reviewing abstracts, they also surveyed authors and found a response consistent with the numbers derived from an analysis of the abstracts. Your blogger does not mention this, why? That is two independent methods with a similar result and consistent with previously published work (links to those studies found above).

Originally Posted by huntinman

Your blogger goes on to say …….As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.

Clearly, your man did not like the question “have humans caused some global warming?” and does not like any surveys of scientists about this because all of them are wrong. The only one he did like is linked above and in that one he misleads everyone in his own reporting. Did you notice he worked in “liberal media” again. Cute. Also, how many times is he going to use the term “alarmists”. He must be taking advice from Frank Luntz too.

Originally Posted by huntinman

Next your blogger wrote……Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso a......
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory...,,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. .......
“I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added.
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position”......
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.”
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.

Wow. All over the map here. The folks at "popular technology" are "investigative journalists", now that is misleading and so is the name of their website. The handful of scientists listed above are the few ardent people against claims of AGW but even the results they cite above suggests 30-60% is human caused if the rest is from solar activity. I wonder how many of their papers were categorized correctly?. There is no mention of this. Note the term used “one of his papers”. That suggests the others were listed correctly. Also, remember this was a review of abstracts not entire papers. Finally here, note the Shaviv quote. He is saying that because of peer view he could not put in his paper what he wanted to say. In other words, his peers who reviewed his paper told him to change something because the research did not support it. That is what peer review is all about, unlike blogs. OK, I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt on this one. There may be 10 papers that were miscategorized. That gives you 3,884 to 94. Clearly, not a strong consensus especially among scientist. What a joke.

I too have been diving for many years and the only coral damage I have seen is following hurricanes where sand a debris have choked it and from divers who cannot control themselves underwater or choose to tear up the coral. As for trees...... My son has an advanced degree in hardwood forestry and after years of studying both hardwood and softwood forests he is absolutely convinced that not only is man not causing climate change that is damaging trees but Professional Foresters have dramatically increased the number of trees and overall health of the trees over the last 50+ years (one notable exception are exotic woods in South America, which have been damaged by man tearing them up or harvesting to many).....facts from my perspective do not support the popular spin....

This natural carbon capture and burial caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to reach a dangerous low of about 275 ppm by the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. At this [COLOR=#11B000 !important]level[/COLOR], plants suffer carbon starvation and growth slows. Like all cold eras, these times were grim.

Luckily the climate [COLOR=#11B000 !important]cycles changed, and earth started warming - some ice melted, oceans warmed and carbon dioxide was expelled from the warming oceans to provide more food for plants. Green vegetation started to invade the deserts and crop yields improved.

[/COLOR]

Man's industrial activities aided this natural green revolution over the last century by returning some naturally-buried carbon from coal and limestone to the biosphere. The pace of earth-greening has increased - even the giant redwoods are growing faster in this more-fertile atmosphere.

If I read this right, theimplication is that the Industrial Revolution (which is blamed for the increase in CO2) was actually coincidental to the cycle of warming, and was beneficial to it. And that the warming cycle has been beneficial to humans and the planet.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

If I read this right, theimplication is that the Industrial Revolution (which is blamed for the increase in CO2) was actually coincidental to the cycle of warming, and was beneficial to it. And that the warming cycle has been beneficial to humans and the planet.

great post Gerry. This once again proves my point about the denier industry. Your author is the director of a coal company. What was that everybody keep saying about follow the money?